Journal cover Journal topic
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

Journal metrics

  • IF value: 2.281 IF 2.281
  • IF 5-year value: 2.693 IF 5-year
    2.693
  • CiteScore value: 2.43 CiteScore
    2.43
  • SNIP value: 1.193 SNIP 1.193
  • IPP value: 2.31 IPP 2.31
  • SJR value: 0.965 SJR 0.965
  • Scimago H <br class='hide-on-tablet hide-on-mobile'>index value: 73 Scimago H
    index 73
  • h5-index value: 40 h5-index 40
Discussion papers
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-165
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2019-165
© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Research article 27 May 2019

Research article | 27 May 2019

Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences (NHESS).

Sandbagging versus Sandbag Replacement Systems: Costs, Time, Helpers, Logistics

Lena Lankenau and Bärbel Koppe Lena Lankenau and Bärbel Koppe
  • Institute for Hydraulic and Coastal Engineering, Hochschule Bremen – City University of Applied Sciences, Bremen, 28199, Germany

Abstract. The classic aid in operative flood defence is the sandbag. Over the past few decades, though, so-called sandbag replacement systems (SBRS) have also been available for flood fighting. The use of sandbags is time-consuming as well as highly intensive in terms of materials and personnel. In contrast, the use of SBRS entails higher investment costs. However, SBRS are reusable and require lower costs for helpers and logistics, so that the higher investment costs are offset by repeated use. In fictitious but realistic scenarios, the use of sandbags and sandbag replacement systems is compared in order to enable a comparison of requirements such as deployment costs, time and helpers. Three different linear SBRS were compared to a 1.0-metre high and 100-metre long sandbag dam. Furthermore, the dyke defence measures load drain and ring dyke were compared with the comparable SBRS available on the market. All three SBRS clearly show time saving and logistical advantages. Under the assumed conditions, the higher investment costs of the SBRS are already amortised with one subsequent reuse.

Lena Lankenau and Bärbel Koppe
Interactive discussion
Status: open (until 22 Jul 2019)
Status: open (until 22 Jul 2019)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
[Subscribe to comment alert] Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement
Lena Lankenau and Bärbel Koppe
Lena Lankenau and Bärbel Koppe
Viewed  
Total article views: 102 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
77 25 0 102 1 0
  • HTML: 77
  • PDF: 25
  • XML: 0
  • Total: 102
  • BibTeX: 1
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 27 May 2019)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 27 May 2019)
Viewed (geographical distribution)  
Total article views: 85 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 84 with geography defined and 1 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Cited  
Saved  
No saved metrics found.
Discussed  
No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 18 Jun 2019
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
In fictitious realistic scenarios, the use of sandbag and sandbag replacement systems for flood defence is compared in terms of costs, time, helpers and logistics. The use of mostly reusable sandbag replacement systems (SBRS) entails higher investment costs and lower costs for helpers and logistics. All of the SBRS considered clearly show time saving and logistical advantages. Under the assumed conditions, the higher investment costs of the SBRS are already amortised with one subsequent reuse.
In fictitious realistic scenarios, the use of sandbag and sandbag replacement systems for flood...
Citation